Honble B.R. ARORA, J.—This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated March, 31, 1992, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Haiiumaagarh, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition, filed by the petitioner.

2. Shivraj Singh lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station, Sadulsahar, against accused Harkishan Singh, Hans Prakash, Har Chand, Raghuveer Singh, Har-dayal Singh and Shamsher Singh for the offences under Sections 147 and 336 I.PC. and under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, which was registered at Serial Number 48 of 1988. The accused-party, also, lodged an F.I.R. against the complainant under section 307 I.P.C which was earlier in time and was registered at Serial Number 47 of 1988. On the basis of that information, a case was registered against the petitioner (the complainant in this case). The police in the case, registered on the information of the petitioner, after necessary investigation, presented the Final Report. After submission of the Final Report by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the learned Magistrate gave notice to the complainant-petitioner. The petitioner, after the receipt of the notice, presented a Protest petition, which was treated as a complaint by the learned Magistrate and the statements of the petitioner-complainant and the witnesses, produced by him, were recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P.O. After recording the statements, and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate considered the complaint, the Final Report submitted by the police and the evidence recorded by the Police as well as the evidenee recorded by him and accepted the Final Report. Dissatisfied with the order date August 1, 1990, accepting the Final Report, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated March 31, 1992. Aggrieved with the order dated March 31, 1992, the petitioner has preferred this miscellaneous petition.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. There is a specific bar under Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C. regarding maintainability of the second revision petition by the same person, therefore, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner. Merely by changing the nomenclature and saying that the jurisdiction of the High Court for exercising its inherent jurisdiction is invoked, the statutory bar cannot be over come. If that can be permitted then every revision petition, facing the bar of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. can be presented under Section 482 Cr.P.C. An Application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable if it is necessary to give effect to any order passed under this Code or to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The present case does not fall within any of the three categories. The view taken by me finds support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the Rajan Kumar Machananda vs. the State of Karnataka (1).

5. I have considered the case of the petitioner even on merit. It is not in dispute that at the time of taking the cognizance, the Court is not required to closely scrutinize the evidence on record. At that stage, the Court, after application of mind to the evidence of the witnesses and the suspected conditions of the defence, has to satisfy itself that a prima facie case is made-out to proceed with against the person accused. The evidence, at this stage, is not to be meticulously examined as is required to be examined at the final stage and the cognizance can be taken if there is prima facie evidence to proceed-with against the accused. Prima facie evidence means the evidence that is sufficient to establish a fact or to raise a presumption of truth of facts unless controverted. At the time

Click Here to Read the rest of this document